Lord of the Rings and Warner audio discussion (split from LotR megathread)

[Driver_King]

Originally Posted by davcole

I think it's sad but i'm pretty sure you'll see a 16bit Lord of the Rings TRUEHD track. I suppose we should be happy with a TRUEHD track, however it's sad to know that we don't have "master quality" audio.

Good joke. Of course we all know that lossless is lossless and the codec is not what makes the sound, right?

[davcole]

Originally Posted by Driver_King

Good joke. Of course we all know that lossless is lossless and the codec is not what makes the sound, right?

There is no mention of codec so i'm not sure what joke you are implying??

However what I am saying is that instead of 24bit, we'll get 16bit. Please advise where i'm comparing codecs?

[Intamin]

Originally Posted by davcole

There is no mention of codec so i'm not sure what joke you are implying??

However what I am saying is that instead of 24bit, we'll get 16bit. Please advise where i'm comparing codecs?

I think when you said "master" he thought you were trying to make a joke that it would be dthd instead of dts-hdma

[davcole]

Originally Posted by Intamin

I think when you said "master" he thought you were trying to make a joke that it would be dthd instead of dts-hdma

Ah... thank you for clearing that up. Perhaps my original post was a bit vague.

Personally i'd love to see them come out with a 24bit TrueHD mix, being Warner it's safe to bet the 16bit. I have no issue with it being TRUEHD. The only thing i'd ask is that the dedicated DD be a hidden track so the player defaults to the TRUEHD.

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by davcole

Ah... thank you for clearing that up. Perhaps my original post was a bit vague.

Personally i'd love to see them come out with a 24bit TrueHD mix, being Warner it's safe to bet the 16bit. I have no issue with it being TRUEHD. The only thing i'd ask is that the dedicated DD be a hidden track so the player defaults to the TRUEHD.

That's not how Warner rolls, so don't expect to see anything but lossy DD 5.1 or DTS as default.

[HeManster03]

honestly, i dont think people will ever be satisfied with warner releases. i remember reading this site and hearing people piss and moan about warner not including lossy audio when all the other studios were doing it. now they are pissing and moaning that they arent using 24 bit and are using only 16 bit. as a poster said before, if you were able to do a double blind test of the exact same scene of the exact same movie at the exact same volume but have 1 24 bit and 1 16 bit track, i would challenge anyone to pick out the difference. if you can, then my hat goes off to you,but you would be in the minority. and to be honest, i dont think 5.1 dthd/dtsmahd should be allowed anymore on discs, as all movies should have some form of 6.1/7.1 lossless mix, since the equipment is obviously there and movies like Waiting can have it, so why not Transformers/Iron Man/ LOTR/ Dark Knight/etc? the only studio that "has it right" is Lionsgate, because thats really all they release is 7.1 lossless. sorry to rant, but leave warner alone. they took a big enough kick in the nuts by choosin hd dvd first, so give them a break. i guarantee LOTR will be done right, and then people can move onto the next big movie for warner that they are afraid that they will fudge up.

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by HeManster03

honestly, i dont think people will ever be satisfied with warner releases. i remember reading this site and hearing people piss and moan about warner not including lossy audio when all the other studios were doing it. now they are pissing and moaning that they arent using 24 bit and are using only 16 bit. as a poster said before, if you were able to do a double blind test of the exact same scene of the exact same movie at the exact same volume but have 1 24 bit and 1 16 bit track, i would challenge anyone to pick out the difference. if you can, then my hat goes off to you,but you would be in the minority. and to be honest, i dont think 5.1 dthd/dtsmahd should be allowed anymore on discs, as all movies should have some form of 6.1/7.1 lossless mix, since the equipment is obviously there and movies like Waiting can have it, so why not Transformers/Iron Man/ LOTR/ Dark Knight/etc? the only studio that "has it right" is Lionsgate, because thats really all they release is 7.1 lossless. sorry to rant, but leave warner alone. they took a big enough kick in the nuts by choosin hd dvd first, so give them a break. i guarantee LOTR will be done right, and then people can move onto the next big movie for warner that they are afraid that they will fudge up.

I agree with you on everything but including 6.1/7.1 tracks on everything. It would require many to have to completely remaster them or change policies. It'd certainly be nice, but not something I worry about.

[victorvondoom88]

Originally Posted by Driver_King

Good joke. Of course we all know that lossless is lossless and the codec is not what makes the sound, right?

If lossless is lossless then why does spidey 3's LPCM track sound better than the Dolby TrueHD? And don't try the whole level matching, and "hot" DTS soundtracks blah, blah. You can argue about those points all you want but this isn't about loudness it's about overall sound quality. In the real world on my system that is calibrated, with the volume at the same level, switching between the tracks. IMO the LPCM track has more detail and better defined bass and well it just sounds better overall.
Sadly I wish I had a movie that had all three LPCM, DTS-HD MA, & DTrueHD on it.
No the codec doesn't make the sound but it isn't crazy to think that one encoding could be superior to another. I believe that DTS-HD MA uses less compression than TrueHD. Dolby claims there encoder is more "efficient" than DTS's. I am of the opinion less is more when it comes to compression.
As far as LOTR films go Warner wont see my money until I get DTS-HD MA or LPCM period. I can keep my special extended cut with DTS-ES 6.1 for now. BTW IMO the DTS-ES tracks sound way better than the Dolby tracks on the dvd's same real world situation.
Just my opinion and worth just what you paid to hear it.

[Driver_King]

Originally Posted by victorvondoom88

If lossless is lossless then why does spidey 3's LPCM track sound better than the Dolby TrueHD? And don't try the whole level matching, and "hot" DTS soundtracks blah, blah. You can argue about those points all you want but this isn't about loudness it's about overall sound quality. In the real world on my system that is calibrated, with the volume at the same level, switching between the tracks. IMO the LPCM track has more detail and better defined bass and well it just sounds better overall.
Sadly I wish I had a movie that had all three LPCM, DTS-HD MA, & DTrueHD on it.
No the codec doesn't make the sound but it isn't crazy to think that one encoding could be superior to another. I believe that DTS-HD MA uses less compression than TrueHD. Dolby claims there encoder is more "efficient" than DTS's. I am of the opinion less is more when it comes to compression.
As far as LOTR films go Warner wont see my money until I get DTS-HD MA or LPCM period. I can keep my special extended cut with DTS-ES 6.1 for now. BTW IMO the DTS-ES tracks sound way better than the Dolby tracks on the dvd's same real world situation.
Just my opinion and worth just what you paid to hear it.

Really? So if what you're saying is true (it is proven that it is not), then would using WinRAR vs. Winzip result in better results in the end result? Or what about a quality USB cable with gold plated connections for better signal transfer? What about high-quality HDMI cables that make your 0's and 1's razor sharp. All a codec is a compression software (except in the case of Uncompressed PCM). In any case, it is the mixes that vary. The codecs do not. The codecs are codecs. Nothing more. In the end, it is all the same exact information. It is not DTS vs. DD and which sounds better. There, the compression factor played a roll in sound (still not that big of a difference anyways). We do not have that issue with lossless. It may be compressed, but it is still lossless. Lossless is lossless. If you still do not agree, you are entitled to your wrong opinion. Otherwise, there are also countless threads about this and articles written about this "issue".

[victorvondoom88]

Originally Posted by Driver_King

Really? So if what you're saying is true (it is proven that it is not), then would using WinRAR vs. Winzip result in better results in the end result? Or what about a quality USB cable with gold plated connections for better signal transfer? What about high-quality HDMI cables that make your 0's and 1's razor sharp. All a codec is a compression software (except in the case of Uncompressed PCM). In any case, it is the mixes that vary. The codecs do not. The codecs are codecs. Nothing more. In the end, it is all the same exact information. It is not DTS vs. DD and which sounds better. There, the compression factor played a roll in sound (still not that big of a difference anyways). We do not have that issue with lossless. It may be compressed, but it is still lossless. Lossless is lossless. If you still do not agree, you are entitled to your wrong opinion. Otherwise, there are also countless threads about this and articles written about this "issue".

Compression is compression. You can't compress anything with out losing something. It just isn't possible however slight it may be. If one compresses more than another then it is giving up more information. There is no way around it.
As far as winrar vs winzip all I can say is I have seen several movie clips compressed with winrar where the audio is no longer in sync with the video.
But as far as documents go who cares as long as you can read the document?
So what your saying is I can encode a song with three different mp3 encoders like windows media player, iTunes and Exact audio copy with Lame and if they are all at the same bit rate they will be the same.
If you actually try it you will find the the wmp version to be the worst while iTunes is better the EAC w/Lame will sound the best of the three. They will all be somewhat close but there is a difference. Granted these are considered "lossy". Example:

http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/

Basically, if you want true CD quality from the files on your iPod or music server, you must use WAV or AIF encoding or FLAC, ALC, or WMA Lossless. Both MP3 and AAC introduce fairly large changes in the measured spectra, even at the highest rate of 320kbps. There seems little point in spending large sums of money on superbly specified audio equipment if you are going to play sonically compromised, lossy-compressed music on it.

It is true that there are better-performing MP3 codecs than the basic Fraunhöfer—many audiophiles recommend the LAME encoder—but the AAC codec used by iTunes has better resolution than MP3 at the same bit rate (if a little noisier at the top of the audioband). If you want the maximum number of files on your iPod, therefore, you take less of a quality hit if you use AAC encoding than if you use MP3. But "CD quality"? Yeah, right!

That being said there is a reason for mp3's popularity I can take 11,000 songs in my pocket. I'm willing to compromise in order to do it.

I don't feel we as HT enthusiast's should have to settle. Everyone has there preference. There is no reason why they can't have both the TrueHD and DTS-HD MA tracks many discs including "300" have both PCM and TrueHD. I understand the reason PCM isn't used as much anymore but why shouldn't we have the choice of DTS-HD MA and TrueHD?

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by victorvondoom88

Compression is compression. You can't compress anything with out losing something. It just isn't possible however slight it may be. If one compresses more than another then it is giving up more information. There is no way around it.

If you start with that belief, you will come to all sorts of wild, conclusions. With lossless, every bit that comes out during compression is put back during decompression. The end result is identical to the original. If it isn't, then it isn't lossless.

[aramis109]

Your comparison of lossless audio codecs using lossy MP3's and other highly-compressed audio formats is completely invalid. Lossy is going by nature to be missing some audio data; lossless by definition is losing nothing.

[Tempest]

Originally Posted by victorvondoom88

Compression is compression. You can't compress anything with out losing something. It just isn't possible however slight it may be. If one compresses more than another then it is giving up more information. There is no way around it.
As far as winrar vs winzip all I can say is I have seen several movie clips compressed with winrar where the audio is no longer in sync with the video.

Your all confused...

Encoding/Converting (making mp3 from .WAV file) is different than Compressing (making a winrar/winzip file).

Encoding is creating something new where you do loose something while compressing is just compressing something into an archive to later be decompressed into the EXACT form it was before.

[Driver_King]

Originally Posted by Tempest

Your all confused...

Encoding/Converting (making mp3 from .WAV file) is different than Compressing (making a winrar/winzip file).

Encoding is creating something new where you do loose something while compressing is just compressing something into an archive to later be decompressed into the EXACT form it was before.

Exactly. I am sorry Mr. Vondoom, you are incorrect and confused. There is no contemplation with lossless. Lossless is lossless. Lossy is not just lossy. There are other factors that come into play there. That is not the case with lossless. If it was not truely lossless, then it would not be called lossless audio.

[Squozen]

Originally Posted by victorvondoom88

Compression is compression. You can't compress anything with out losing something. It just isn't possible however slight it may be. If one compresses more than another then it is giving up more information. There is no way around it.

Oh dear.

Son, you need to actually do some tests with different lossless packing algorithms and an MD5 hash checker because you're talking utter cobblers.

[Driver_King]

So you agree that not all Warner Bros. Dolby TrueHD mixes are bad and some are good, correct? I was trying to get that out of you. If that is true, then I do not understand why you said that you wouldn't buy LOTR if it had a Dolby track since it wouldn't be good enough or something along those lines. I also didn't see post 35 where you said you don't use DRC. I apologize for the confusion there.

[Big Daddy]

The biggest objection I have with Warner releases is that the movies do not go to the root menu (main menu or whatever name you want to call it) and give you the option to decide the sound and subtitle. On almost all Warner titles, the movie starts with Dolby Digital as default. Many users may not even be aware of this problem. Is there any reason why Warner thinks starting a movie without going to the menu is a good idea? Why is it that almost all other studios do it differently?

A second problem with Warner titles is that their extra features look like the Encyclopedia Britanica. Can't they make them more user-friendly?

Warning: Please do not turn this thread into another Dolby TrueHD versus DTS HD Master Audio debate.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by victorvondoom88

Sadly I wish I had a movie that had all three LPCM, DTS-HD MA, & DTrueHD on it.

Red Cliff and Red Cliff II have all three audio tracks on them.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by victorvondoom88

If lossless is lossless then why does spidey 3's LPCM track sound better than the Dolby TrueHD? And don't try the whole level matching, and "hot" DTS soundtracks blah, blah. You can argue about those points all you want but this isn't about loudness it's about overall sound quality. In the real world on my system that is calibrated, with the volume at the same level, switching between the tracks. IMO the LPCM track has more detail and better defined bass and well it just sounds better overall.

I've read a lot from people who have expressed the same opinion. Ideally the TRUEHD should sound better as it's 24bit compared to the 16bit PCM. Personally playing around with both the PCM and the TRUEHD track, I can't draw that conclusion.

[davcole]

As for my hopes for the audio, i'd like to see 24bit TRUEHD 6.1. Having the EE's on DVD and having a 6.1 set up, I can tell you I appreciate having the backchannel available to me, i'm not bothered if the back channel was taken from a reprocessed back channel. 6.1 would give us on BD exactly what we received on the DVD with lossless audio.

As BD bills itself as having master quality audio or being able to have an "exact" copy of the studio master, I don't want anything less. All the 24bit tracks i've listened to have sounded stellar to me and as I believe these films are 24bit recordings, I don't want anything less.